* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> If I believed that it would be a hundred-line patch, and would *stay*
> a hundred-line patch, I'd be fine with it.  But it won't.  I will
> bet a very fine dinner that the feature wouldn't get out the door
> before there would be demands for pg_dump support. 

Fine, how about a function that can be called by pg_dump (and anyone
else who has the rights and feels the need) to set that value?  That
avoids all need for any new syntax and still gives us the pg_dump and
friends support that will apparently be asked for.

> And arguments
> about whether ALTER should or should not change the timestamp.

There is no case where ALTER should change the *creation* time, imo.

> And I doubt you counted psql \d support in that hundred lines.
> So this is just a can of worms that I'd rather not open.

The last psql \d support change that I looked at (thanks Jon) had a
diffstat (excluding documentation and whitespace changes) of:

sfrost(at)beorn:/home/sfrost/Downloads> cat qq | diffstat               
 describe.c |    5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

Just saying. ;)

	Thanks,

		Stephen

In response to

• Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database" at 2013-01-03 02:02:09 from Tom Lane

Responses

• Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database" at 2013-01-03 04:04:43 from Robert Haas

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Noah Misch	Date: 2013-01-03 03:13:58
	Subject: Problematic dependency in plpython Makefile [Windows]
Previous:	From: Stephen Frost	Date: 2013-01-03 02:06:01
	Subject: Re: Proposal: Store "timestamptz" of database creation on "pg_database"